Navigate:

Seven questions for Barack Obama

President Obama's news conference will highlight his efforts to bolster the economy. | Reuters Photo
Close

2. When you won in 2008, many commentators and some of your advisers spoke about a sea change in American politics and a new political era — maybe even a permanent majority for Democrats. Two years later, the political landscape looks quite different, and some of your aides have reportedly said your election may have been due to an odd confluence of events rather than some huge change in the country. Where do you come down on this?

Expect some variation on this question: Where’s the old Obama, and where’s his army? He looked like a transformational, even invincible, figure two years ago. But he sure isn’t looking that way now.

Text Size

-

+

reset

His approval ratings are in the 40s. Predictions for Democratic losses in the House in the midterms have risen from about 20 seats to about 45, which would mean a GOP takeover. First-time voters from 2008 —largely young people, college students and minorities — aren’t showing much interest in turning out this time. And the tea party now seems to be at the cutting edge of the kind of Internet organizing Obama won praise for.

The question also gets to the heart of something a lot of Obama supporters themselves have been wondering lately — what happened to that soaring speaker and moving leader they voted for? Surely, governing is different than campaigning, but maybe Obama himself is the only one who can truly explain that change to confused voters.

3. In a speech Wednesday, you painted House Republican leader John Boehner as a kind of bogeyman intent on returning America to the Bush era. “There were no new policies from Mr. Boehner. There were no new ideas,” Obama complained, calling Boehner out eight times in a 45–minute address. Now let’s say it’s Nov. 3, and it’s going to be House Speaker Boehner — what’s your strategy for dealing with him then after roughing him up so much?

The White House seems to have traded the 2008 campaign theme of “hope” for a new, more traditional one in 2010: “fear.”

The strategy may help stem Democratic losses by firing up the party’s base. But it could also exacerbate the gridlock Obama aides have complained about since his election (and which he campaigned in 2008 on breaking for good).

The White House has given little indication of how it plans to manage a Congress even more hostile to Obama’s proposals than the current one, or to work with a Republican like Boehner when Obama has at times struggled to corral lawmakers from his own party.

Readers' Comments (477)

Question 6: Can the nutters on politico make a single reply to this article without transforming your name into a silly word or using sociological, political, or economic terms they don't actually understand.

Question 7: Do you promise to work with Republicans if they secure a majority in congress or will you be like the do-nothing Republicans who stonewalled every initiative you have had as they bet against American prosperity just to win some seats on the Hill?

Obama Field Tests “Cloward-Piven” Socialism by Jim Davis on August 27, 2010

As one looks at the economy honestly, the year 2006 indicated the time was right for a normal, cyclical slowdown to readjust (cool down) the market place. If memory serves me correctly, that happens just about every 8-10 year (with the caveat that the dot com bubble rescued one in 1996). What happened this time was the incompetence of the Obama Administration which has caused a normal slow down to decompose into a textbook Depression- the first since before the second world war.

There are credible observations that say Obama did intentionally drive down the economy. Given his Marxist roots, it is reasonable to acknowledge that paradigm as a possibility. It’s also reasonable to conclude that a graduate of Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard University would know better than to employ the tactics he did unless he was purposefully harming the economy. This cannot be some magnificent faux pas in his economic policies. Policies directly responsible for the current economic meltdown.

Erskin Bowls, of the Clinton White House said of Obama’s economic policies: “{they are} truly going to destroy the country from within.” He ostensibly fretted: “Just think about that: All that money, going somewhere else, to create jobs and opportunity somewhere else.” “Almost sounds like redistributing our wealth.”*

Democrat insiders have asserted that Obama indeed has a grand plan to drive down the economic positions of those who: (a) “Have so much more than others”. Or can (b) Can finance those who would oppose him in his religious quest to equalize the gap between the “haves” and “have nots”.

It’s easy to conclude that the Obama Administration has adopted the Cloward-Piven strategy as it’s economic policy.

Jerome Corsi writes:“Furthermore, the Cloward-Piven strategy seems to be in play, which essentially seeks to overload the government with welfare and entitlements to the point of economic collapse. Is President Obama intentionally placing so many on the government dole, including the inclusion of illegal aliens in Obama care, because he wants to bankrupt the United States to destroy the private-enterprise system, following the lead of the leftist radicals that employed the Cloward-Piven strategy”?

Wikipedia describes the “Cloward–Piven strategy: “The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, then both sociologists and political activists at the Columbia University School of Social Work, in a 1966 article in The Nation entitled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty”. The two argued that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would create a political crisis that would force U.S. politicians, particularly the Democratic Party, to enact legislation “establishing a guaranteed national income.”

Now that we have a Marxist president,and a ”Progressive” (Marxist) congress, and what do we get? “Marxism”. Marxism that targets the nations economical stability.

Wikipedia continues to explain: “”The socialist test case for using society’s poor and disadvantaged people as sacrificial “shock troops,” in accordance with the Cloward–Piven strategy, was demonstrated in 1975, when new prospective welfare recipients flooded New York City with payment demands, which may have contributed to the bankrupting of the state government.”

Quite frankly, I think Obama thought he would get away with this. What he didn’t expect was the backlash, or the degree of backlash that came from the American public. The backlash was such a surprise to Obama and the Democrats that, in their panic; they loosed their political war machine on their own constituents. Illustrating how arrogant the Democrat politicians really are.

Americans, nation wide have a simple task in the up-coming mid-term elections. The differences between the two parties has never been so evident. A vote for any Democrat is a vote for Marxism. A vote for any Republican is a repudiation of the arrogance, and the treason of the Democrat Party these past two years.

Obama Field Tests “Cloward-Piven” Socialism by Jim Davis on August 27, 2010[edit]

As one looks at the economy honestly, the year 2006 indicated the time was right for a normal, cyclical slowdown to readjust (cool down) the market place. If memory serves me correctly, that happens just about every 8-10 year (with the caveat that the dot com bubble rescued one in 1996). What happened this time was the incompetence of the Obama Administration which has caused a normal slow down to decompose into a textbook Depression- the first since before the second world war.

There are credible observations that say Obama did intentionally drive down the economy. Given his Marxist roots, it is reasonable to acknowledge that paradigm as a possibility. It’s also reasonable to conclude that a graduate of Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard University would know better than to employ the tactics he did unless he was purposefully harming the economy. This cannot be some magnificent faux pas in his economic policies. Policies directly responsible for the current economic meltdown.

Erskin Bowls, of the Clinton White House said of Obama’s economic policies: “{they are} truly going to destroy the country from within.” He ostensibly fretted: “Just think about that: All that money, going somewhere else, to create jobs and opportunity somewhere else.” “Almost sounds like redistributing our wealth.”*

Democrat insiders have asserted that Obama indeed has a grand plan to drive down the economic positions of those who: (a) “Have so much more than others”. Or can (b) Can finance those who would oppose him in his religious quest to equalize the gap between the “haves” and “have nots”.

It’s easy to conclude that the Obama Administration has adopted the Cloward-Piven strategy as it’s economic policy.

Jerome Corsi writes:“Furthermore, the Cloward-Piven strategy seems to be in play, which essentially seeks to overload the government with welfare and entitlements to the point of economic collapse. Is President Obama intentionally placing so many on the government dole, including the inclusion of illegal aliens in Obama care, because he wants to bankrupt the United States to destroy the private-enterprise system, following the lead of the leftist radicals that employed the Cloward-Piven strategy”?

Wikipedia describes the “Cloward–Piven strategy: “The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, then both sociologists and political activists at the Columbia University School of Social Work, in a 1966 article in The Nation entitled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty”. The two argued that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would create a political crisis that would force U.S. politicians, particularly the Democratic Party, to enact legislation “establishing a guaranteed national income.”

Now that we have a Marxist president,and a ”Progressive” (Marxist) congress, and what do we get? “Marxism”. Marxism that targets the nations economical stability.

Wikipedia continues to explain: “”The socialist test case for using society’s poor and disadvantaged people as sacrificial “shock troops,” in accordance with the Cloward–Piven strategy, was demonstrated in 1975, when new prospective welfare recipients flooded New York City with payment demands, which may have contributed to the bankrupting of the state government.”

Quite frankly, I think Obama thought he would get away with this. What he didn’t expect was the backlash, or the degree of backlash that came from the American public. The backlash was such a surprise to Obama and the Democrats that, in their panic; they loosed their political war machine on their own constituents. Illustrating how arrogant the Democrat politicians really are.

Americans, nation wide have a simple task in the up-coming mid-term elections. The differences between the two parties has never been so evident. A vote for any Democrat is a vote for Marxism. A vote for any Republican is a repudiation of the arrogance, and the treason of the Democrat Party these past two years.

As one looks at the economy honestly, the year 2006 indicated the time was right for a normal, cyclical slowdown to readjust (cool down) the market place.

Your copy-paste article fails on the first sentence. You don't remember GW Bush's begging for ONE TRILLION DOLLARS to give to his buddy Paulsen to bail out the banks AFTER sinking TWO TRILLION into Bear Sterns, AIG and the FMs. That isn't normal.

If Politico's running a question session for Obama expecting any answers, good luck on that. The American people are shaking their head about a president who promised hope and change which turned into a JUST spend quickly program of 2.5 TRILLION dollars in 19 months,

With NO results. And the Left is lamenting it? Maybe the Left should ask themselves a question. Would Hillary have been the far better candidate? The answer is , probably yes.

So now what to they do when the President that the Left voted for has taken this great nation into further economic trouble?

Answer: The Left remains in the Deluded Lib category of, Obama and government just failed because of underfunding.

Americans know it will take the people to right their mistake and it starts with mid terms in November voting out any incumbant that voted for Obama spending.

Your copy-paste article fails on the first sentence. You don't remember GW Bush's begging for ONE TRILLION DOLLARS to give to his buddy Paulsen to bail out the banks AFTER sinking TWO TRILLION into Bear Sterns, AIG and the FMs. That isn't normal.

You forgot facilitated by the Democrat congress controlled by Pelosi and Reid.

Your copy-paste article fails on the first sentence. You don't remember GW Bush's begging for ONE TRILLION DOLLARS to give to his buddy Paulsen to bail out the banks AFTER sinking TWO TRILLION into Bear Sterns, AIG and the FMs. That isn't normal.

You forgot facilitated by the Democrat congress controlled by Pelosi and Reid.

Your copy-paste article fails on the first sentence. You don't remember GW Bush's begging for ONE TRILLION DOLLARS to give to his buddy Paulsen to bail out the banks AFTER sinking TWO TRILLION into Bear Sterns, AIG and the FMs. That isn't normal.

Republicans are happy that voters have short memories.

BOy and Defenders have no memories.. Hey didn't they needthe democrats to vote on the Tarp .. and didn't the democrats voted yes to pass the bill.. I notice you forgot to mention that the Tarp failed.. yep A Failed Bill went to the seante.. Gee please explain how a bill that didn't pass in the house was shipped to the Senate...

You also forgot to mention that the sSenate added another 100 billion dollars .. for Arrow head museum and other pork projects.. But again you have selective memories....

BTW Umm The Tarp was given to both Bush and Barry didn't you remember that fact.. But again let's review What Nacy and Barry and the Gang stated about Bush...Terrible prsident , not too bright and yet they give hime according to you 700 billion 1 month befiore he was voted out of office... Gee Why again whould they give Bush 700 billion dollars again....

You also forgot to mention that bush released350 billion and barry got 350 billion too, you also forgot to mention Chris dodd writing into the bill a provision about paying out bonuses to AIG and others... Tax payers money.. but again Some here state fact or atleast some version of truth.. While people who are well not too bright .. ramble on about nonsense...

But again I really can't tell you how ignorant you are seeing you are a Flipping crybaby and report abuse.. A typical Lefist Democratic tatic.. But again I state the truth and state your Flipping opinion.. but again Barry is the best recrutment for the Republican party..becuase Barry is a walking diaster..

Done in one hillary will win the primaries then who knows But Barry will be out.. nobody especially women will vote for him again!

“People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero,” Palin wrote on Facebook.

So true, so true.....

The same applies to burning a Bible, but the worry about the reaction to that seems not to be as strong for the US government that burned Bibles in Afghanistan in the past.

I suppose, in the end, it shows two things.....

1. Christians are much less likely to resort to violence which is actually a tenet of their faith while Muslims are more likely to resort to violence. Jihad seems to be an important part of Islam.

2. The left is intellectually dishonest and inconsistant in dealing with Muslims compared to others.....There is extra sensitivity to Muslims and I believe it comes from the left's hostility towards Christianity, which holds a special place in the secularist's heart of hate.

I like the situation....it confirms to me Christ's special place in the world.

@Lauren or Laura (you are no one to me) Rozen.....Your point? we know it is hard right now. president Obama came in under the worse, even FDR did not have two wars; one a bogus lie. So you ask dumbe political questions. We the people will surprize your elite self. And where we do not we will still survive. you are obviously part of the new media, money maker, elite "cult" attack the President and the folks will not care. It is the obstructionist Rethugs and hateful ahistorical and YES racist tea party that matter that is who spreads your butter on your bread. You just do not have any idea how many of us there are in the USA; because you walk around explaining and not trying. We will be there in November.

@Lauren or Laura (you are no one to me) Rozen.....Your point? we know it is hard right now. president Obama came in under the worse, even FDR did not have two wars; one a bogus lie. So you ask dumbe political questions. We the people will surprize your elite self. And where we do not we will still survive. you are obviously part of the new media, money maker, elite "cult" attack the President and the folks will not care. It is the obstructionist Rethugs and hateful ahistorical and YES racist tea party that matter that is who spreads your butter on your bread. You just do not have any idea how many of us there are in the USA; because you walk around explaining and not trying. We will be there in November.

Obama is a Marxist about as much as McCain is a Christian. While not a command and control economy, sometimes politicians go knocking on the economic door equivalent of dual covenant theology. This economy has recently been trashed by the 'love of money' psychopathy of Wall Street and the financial crowd. The AIPAC media seems to believe that the credentials of the bimbolicious Sarah Palin are sufficient to address serious economic, foreign policy and moral issues that the nation faces. Randy Scheunemann must be proud.

Obama is a Marxist about as much as McCain is a Christian. While not a command and control economy, sometimes politicians go knocking on the economic door equivalent of dual covenant theology. This economy has recently been trashed by the 'love of money' psychopathy of Wall Street and the financial crowd. The AIPAC media seems to believe that the credentials of the bimbolicious Sarah Palin are sufficient to address serious economic, foreign policy and moral issues that the nation faces. Randy Scheunemann must be proud.